scispace - formally typeset
P

Panayiotis E. Pelargos

Researcher at University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center

Publications -  50
Citations -  829

Panayiotis E. Pelargos is an academic researcher from University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center. The author has contributed to research in topics: Medicine & Neurosurgery. The author has an hindex of 12, co-authored 44 publications receiving 570 citations. Previous affiliations of Panayiotis E. Pelargos include University of California, Los Angeles & University of Oklahoma.

Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI

Utilizing virtual and augmented reality for educational and clinical enhancements in neurosurgery

TL;DR: A historical perspective of the development of VR and AR technologies is presented, its current uses are analyzed, and its emerging applications in the field of neurosurgery are discussed.
Journal ArticleDOI

The role of CD44 in glioblastoma multiforme.

TL;DR: Research is summarized that describes how CD44 promotes GBM aggressiveness by increasing tumor cell invasion, proliferation and resistance to standard chemoradiation therapy, and suggests that CD44 inhibition in GBM may be a promising therapy.
Journal ArticleDOI

Anatomy and white matter connections of the inferior frontal gyrus

TL;DR: The inferior frontal gyrus is an important region implicated in a variety of tasks including language processing, speech production, motor control, interoceptive awareness, and semantic processing, and Postsurgical outcomes related to this region may be better understood in the context of the fiber‐bundle anatomy highlighted in this study.
Journal ArticleDOI

Transferrin receptors and glioblastoma multiforme: Current findings and potential for treatment.

TL;DR: The transferrin pathway may be a promising target, but more research should be completed on the antigenicity to discern the viability of it as an immunotherapy target.
Journal ArticleDOI

Laser neurosurgery: A systematic analysis of magnetic resonance-guided laser interstitial thermal therapies.

TL;DR: Head-to-head comparison of these systems was difficult given the variance in indications (and therefore patient population) and disparate literature, and frame, total complications, and length-of-stay (LOS) were non-significant when adjusted for age and number of patients.